Path to 9/11 - the new Fahrenheit 911?

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,137
Likes
60,186
#1
ABC's upcoming miniseries/docudrama based on the 9/11 Commisssion report is causing extreme anger among the left.

ABC.com: The Path to 9/11

Will it be a fair treatment or will it be as skewed as Michael Moore's world view. Maybe somewhere in between.

The series covers the time from 1993 WTC bombing to 9/11. Liberals are mad because it focuses so much on the Clinton administration (and potential failings in the war on terror). On the other hand, they were the administration in charge for the nearly all of that time period.

Some rumors suggest that even Clinton is trying to convince ABC to edit so parts that are particularly harsh on his admin.

Prepare for a war over this one.
 
#2
#2
Well keep in mind that if you blame Clinton for 9/11, you have to blame Bush 41 for WTC '93.
 
#3
#3
I think the larger point is that there is plenty of blame to go around.

I do think it would be useful to understand the role of different administrations to better evaluate competing approaches to the problem.
 
#4
#4
Also keep in mind that the ones doing the investigations, arrests, etc. are career bureacrats. The major final decisions can be blamed on a President. But most of the action goes on at the lower and mid levels. Of course saying Clinton should have gotten him when he had the chance can be applied to the present.....it's been 5 years after the murder of 3000 Americans and the two guys who orchestrated this are still at large. One of them is making high quality studio production videos....and now we have a good ol' American jumping in the act as well.
 
#5
#5
Not sure if this is what you are suggesting but I'm not "blaming" any president for anything.

I realize these are complex actions taken within a larger strategy for dealing with the terrorism problem.

I do think it is informative to know how the Clinton Admin approached the problem and to compare that to the approach of the Bush Admin. Neither has it/had it right but the analysis can show which strategies should be continued and which should be changed.
 
#6
#6
CSpindizzy said:
Well keep in mind that if you blame Clinton for 9/11, you have to blame Bush 41 for WTC '93.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps we could blame neither of them unless they were directly involved with committing these offenses. How about we blame the people and groups that were directly responsible for committing the acts.
 
#7
#7
I'm not saying you are suggesting anything. I'm just throwing this out there since there are those who come in with prejudiced viewpoints blaming one side or the other.

What I'm concerned with is whether we are truly pursuing a "stop all or most terrorism" or are we just pursuing a "not in my backyard" strategy. When you hear GOP speakers talk about the issue, they are quick to say "Since 9/11 we have not been attacked". This is disingenuous since there was a huge gap between 1993 and 2001 as well.
 
#8
#8
CSpindizzy said:
This is disingenuous since there was a huge gap between 1993 and 2001 as well.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. US facilities were attacked numerous times during that period. Other than those areas in which we are militarily engaged (Afghanistan and Iraq) there have been no terrorist attacks on US facilities.
 
#9
#9
As an update to my last post - there was a bomb outside of the US consulate in Pakistan in 2002.
 
#10
#10
I am speaking of the references made by certain elected officials that indicate we have not been attacked since 9/11.
 
#11
#11
It might be disingenuous, however, it is true. Politics is a game and most of us know that playing semantics is one way to help your cause. American embassies are America just as much as Time Square is. Battlefields are the same way. Therefore, there is no lie in telling people that American civilians have not been attacked on American property since 9/11. Is it a little deceitful, yes. However, is it completely within the rules of politics, yes.
 
#12
#12
My point is that twisting only works for so long. Look at all of the polls now. Across the board people are basically saying Bush is lying or just wrong about this whole issue of the war on terror. People are growing tired with hearing one thing coming from the WH and seeing something completely on the web, news, papers, etc.
 
#13
#13
I really do not care about the polls. I honestly believe that the whole philosophy behind polling is ludacris and lazy. News organizations should actively search out news stories. Polls are a way to avoid work and make your own news. A newspaper man with a solid work ethic would never fail to be able to sell a newspaper, no matter what the news is. He would hire only the best of writers, have the backbone to rid himself of writers that are declining in their abilities, and he would make all news very sensational to read. The whole idea of, "Good news doesn't sell," is outlandish. Great stories sell. The fact is that bad news, written poorly, will sell more than good news, written poorly.
 
#14
#14
i'm interested in the fact that liberals care that they are focusing on bill clinton, seeing as how bill clinton is not a liberal
 
#15
#15
So taking a snapshot of the electorate is lazy? It's the same concept as voting but at a micro level. And since when has the media ever NOT made its own news?
 
#16
#16
CSpindizzy said:
So taking a snapshot of the electorate is lazy? It's the same concept as voting but at a micro level. And since when has the media ever NOT made its own news?
Click to expand...
It is indeed lazy and not the same concept as voting. Voting is necessary in order to assign men/women the to government positions. Polls do not assign men/women to any positions, whatsoever.
 
#17
#17
CSpindizzy said:
Across the board people are basically saying Bush is lying or just wrong about this whole issue of the war on terror.
Click to expand...

Not true. W still scores pretty well in the polls on the war on terror. It's everything else where they score him low including Iraq which many don't consider a part of the war on terror.
 
#18
#18
volinbham said:
Not true. W still scores pretty well in the polls on the war on terror. It's everything else where they score him low including Iraq which many don't consider a part of the war on terror.
Click to expand...

The interesting part of that stat in the polls is that NO poll has ever measured how many are dissatisfied with the President because they don't feel the war in Iraq has been prosecuted with - as George Patton put it - "maximum violence."

I daresay at least 1/3 (and this is just a gut feeling) of those whose the media would have us believe are "agin" the war, fall into this category.

Some conservative blogs are starting to pick up on this and address the "Caveman Voter."

TCS Daily - Unfrozen Caveman Voter (link)

"No better monologue could capture the spirit of a large portion of America today.

Hey, all you elected politicians and media types and academics! I'm just an average guy. I wake up and I go to work and I have a family. I don't know much about Shi'ites, Sunnis, Wahhabis, Salafists, Imams, Mullahs, root causes, or the desire for democracy in the Muslim world or whatever. My mind can grasp these concepts just fine, the fact of the matter is I just don't care. I don't know much about all that stuff, but there is one thing I do know: when a bunch of "death-to-america" chanting yahoos want to destroy our culture, attack our cities, down our aircraft, and build nuclear weapons, then they are entitled to the business end of a B52."

<snip>

"The Unfrozen Caveman Voter is begging to be released. But at the moment, he is being misread by both national parties, and especially the Democrats. Sure, some people oppose the invasion of Iraq or simply hate George Bush, period. And sure, some people distrust all Muslims and are racists. But the vast majority of America falls in the middle of these extremes. However they think of it now, they thought confronting Iraq was a fine idea, and wish it had gone better, but that doesn't translate at all into defeatism, as it is defined, refined and reiterated in the press. On the contrary, they'd like to see more action, more activity, a seizure of the initiative in some way. Using defensive policework and intelligence measures to catch bad guys before they blow up more aircraft are all fine and well, but the Unfrozen Caveman Voter wants very badly to see more offensive measures too."

Hie ye over and read the rest.
 
#19
#19
The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious."
- Marcus Aurelius
Click to expand...


"It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means"
This is from a translated version of "On War" from 1976​
Click to expand...

"The best form of defense is attack."
- Karl von Clausewitz
Click to expand...

"Never do an enemy a small injury"
- Niccolo Machiavelli
Click to expand...

[QUOTE]"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
("If you want peace, prepare for war!")
- Flavius Vegetius Renatus[/QUOTE]
 
#21
#21
Ummm............hands upward....It's ummmm.......It's hard work........You see........President...........It's......hard work.......change of direction while holding onto platform.
 
#22
#22
volinbham said:
Not true. W still scores pretty well in the polls on the war on terror. It's everything else where they score him low including Iraq which many don't consider a part of the war on terror.
Click to expand...

Really? Every poll I'm looking at has it about 50-50 with some even showing support for him on this below 50. That's not pretty well for support for something that has to do with the security of this nation.
 
#25
#25
Not that this is news&#8230;but we can&#8217;t have the public know about&#8230;

Of course the question is: &#8216;Did the Clinton administration have a response to terrorism?&#8217;

Various Clinton officials have called for changes in the movie. It was rumored that Clinton was going to call the head of Disney to request changes

So you know, it&#8217;s not all one sided:


The film does paint a rather unflattering portrait of the incoming Bush administration -- showing how they demoted White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, and failed to act against al-Qaida even after their responsibility for the November 2000 attack on the USS Cole became clear.
Click to expand...


here is what ABC has to say

But former GOP Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant to the production, defended the film, saying it showed "a colossal failure of government.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top